Skip to content

config: runtime: tests: rt-tests: Rename PRIORITY -> RT_PRIORITY - #3203

Open
sebastianas wants to merge 1 commit into
kernelci:mainfrom
sebastianas:rt_tests_rename
Open

config: runtime: tests: rt-tests: Rename PRIORITY -> RT_PRIORITY#3203
sebastianas wants to merge 1 commit into
kernelci:mainfrom
sebastianas:rt_tests_rename

Conversation

@sebastianas

Copy link
Copy Markdown

The cyclictest command is run a low task priority. From the output in the test I see
| / # /lava-22804428/bin/lava-test-runner /lava-22804428/0 | + export TESTRUN_ID=0_rt-tests-cyclictest
| + TESTRUN_ID=0_rt-tests-cyclictest
| + cd /lava-22804428/0/tests/0_rt-tests-cyclictest | ++ cat uuid
| + UUID=22804428_1.1.4.1
| + set +x
| <LAVA_SIGNAL_STARTRUN 0_rt-tests-cyclictest 22804428_1.1.4.1> | + cd ./automated/linux/cyclictest/
| + ./cyclictest.sh -D 540s -p 48 -i 1000 -t 2 -a 0 -h '' -w hackbench | Received signal: 0_rt-tests-cyclictest 22804428_1.1.4.1 | Starting test lava.0_rt-tests-cyclictest (22804428_1.1.4.1) | Skipping test definition patterns.
| # /dev/cpu_dma_latency set to 0us
| T: 0 ( 437) P:48 I:1000 C: 540000 Min: 4 Act: 5 Avg: 18 Max: 217
| T: 1 ( 438) P:48 I:1500 C: 360000 Min: 4 Act: 9 Avg: 17 Max: 340
| t0-min-latency pass 4 us
| t0-avg-latency pass 18.29 us
| t0-max-latency pass 217 us
| t1-min-latency pass 4 us
| t1-avg-latency pass 17.69 us
| t1-max-latency pass 340 us
| cyclictest pass

and the test definition has
| name: rt-tests-cyclictest
| parameters:

| PRIORITY: 48

| status: finished
| priority: 48
| timeouts:

I think that PRIORITY and priority arguments are getting confused and instead of the cylictest priority it is using the scheduling priority.

Rename PRIORITY to RT_PRIORITY

The cyclictest command is run a low task priority. From the output in
the test I see
| / # /lava-22804428/bin/lava-test-runner /lava-22804428/0
| + export TESTRUN_ID=0_rt-tests-cyclictest
| + TESTRUN_ID=0_rt-tests-cyclictest
| + cd /lava-22804428/0/tests/0_rt-tests-cyclictest
| ++ cat uuid
| + UUID=22804428_1.1.4.1
| + set +x
| <LAVA_SIGNAL_STARTRUN 0_rt-tests-cyclictest 22804428_1.1.4.1>
| + cd ./automated/linux/cyclictest/
| + ./cyclictest.sh -D 540s -p 48 -i 1000 -t 2 -a 0 -h '' -w hackbench
| Received signal: <STARTRUN> 0_rt-tests-cyclictest 22804428_1.1.4.1
| Starting test lava.0_rt-tests-cyclictest (22804428_1.1.4.1)
| Skipping test definition patterns.
| # /dev/cpu_dma_latency set to 0us
| T: 0 (  437) P:48 I:1000 C: 540000 Min:      4 Act:    5 Avg:   18 Max:     217
| T: 1 (  438) P:48 I:1500 C: 360000 Min:      4 Act:    9 Avg:   17 Max:     340
| t0-min-latency pass 4 us
| t0-avg-latency pass 18.29 us
| t0-max-latency pass 217 us
| t1-min-latency pass 4 us
| t1-avg-latency pass 17.69 us
| t1-max-latency pass 340 us
| cyclictest pass

and the test definition has
|      name: rt-tests-cyclictest
|      parameters:
…
|        PRIORITY: 48
…
|     status: finished
| priority: 48
| timeouts:

I think that PRIORITY and priority arguments are getting confused and
instead of the cylictest priority it is using the scheduling priority.

Rename PRIORITY to RT_PRIORITY

Signed-off-by: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
HISTOGRAM: {{ histogram|default('') }}
INTERVAL: {{ interval|default('1000') }}
PRIORITY: {{ priority|default('98') }}
RT_PRIORITY: {{ rt_priority|default('98') }}

@bhcopeland bhcopeland Sep 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

RT_PRIORITY needs to stay as PRIORITY. But the other than that this makes sense

PRIORITY: {{ rt_priority|default('98') }}

As per: https://github.com/Linaro/test-definitions/blob/master/automated/linux/cyclictest/cyclictest.sh

@sebastianas sebastianas Sep 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I see. I did open kernelci/test-definitions#25. Was this the wrong place or should I additionally open one against the Linaro repository? Having both as RT_PRIORITY does make it look more consistent.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants